Aircraft Carriers?

[Sandman]

Not useful, except for expensively shaking down hapless third world countries.

[Cyclotron]

You're forgetting China.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by pchang


In that case, the US should just sell them their old ones.

And then the UK sell their old ones to the Canadians. And maybe throw in a free bucket hole repair kit this time.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
You're forgetting China.

What use are they against China?

[MOBIUS]

I think the US should continue bankrupting itself countering the Chinese menace while the rest of us spend our money on living it up...:beer:

[:) Smiley]

Originally posted by Sandman


What use are they against China?

Dunno, but were 10,000 nukes really needed against the USSR?

[Verto]

Originally posted by Sandman
Not useful, except for expensively shaking down hapless third world countries.

Or in leading Tsunami relief efforts.

[Cyclotron]

And China

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sandman
Not useful, except for expensively shaking down hapless third world countries.

Carrier battle groups are very useful for shaking down advanced first world countries too. In fact those battle groups can completely control sea lanes if you have enough of them positioned in the right locations.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sandman


What use are they against China?

Considering how China must import most of its raw materials via the sea...

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Verto


Or in leading Tsunami relief efforts.

No ****ing kidding. We couldn't have pulled off half our stuff off of Sumatra without the Abe Lincoln.

And, as Oerdin said, we can use them to shake down first world countries too.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Sandman


What use are they against China?

Where else would we base airplanes out of for airstrikes on China? Guam? That covers the heavy bombers...but that's about it.

Also, Carriers aren't static targets, so while the airfields in Taiwan are being bombed, the Carriers can just move around...

[GePap]

Just build missile ships. Why waste money on vulnerable carriers? If you can get smart enough missiles, a single much smaller, faster, less vulnerable vessel could deliver the same amount of firepower.

Subs are the best way to control the sea lanes. Far less vulnerable than carriers, and not influences by weather.

[Dinner]

Hard to run fighter escorts with missile ships. Hard to run resupply missions with missile ships. Missiles can't be used in anti-submarine warfare nor can they be used to escort merchant ship convoys.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Hard to run fighter escorts with missile ships. Hard to run resupply missions with missile ships. Missiles can't be used in anti-submarine warfare nor can they be used to escort merchant ship convoys.

ASW can be run cheaper and more effectively by frigates than aircraft from carriers. Carriers don't play a central ASW role.

Why would you need escort fighters with missile ships?

And what the **** would anyone be doing with a nuclear carrier escorting convoys? This isn't WW2 and there are NOT baby flattops.

We are talking the realities of 2005 technology, not 1945 naval combat.